SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIII, Issue 419, 9 June 1922, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

ROAD MAINTENANCE CASE,

DANNEVTRKE AND WEBER COUNTY

COUNCILS

The Supremo Court civil session was resinned this morning before iI is Honour the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, when the action, Dannevirlce County Council v. Weber County Council, was resumed. In this case, which is a claim by the plaintiff corporation for tho sum of £792 11s 7d and interest, being allegedly the amount due by the defendant council in payment, of its allotted share of the cost of maintaining tin Dnnnevirkc-Ilerbortville road, Mf Lloyd, of Dannevirke,. represents the, plainI ill council and Mr Wilford, of Wellington, defendant council.

Mr Lloyd submitted that (lie mailer for consideration was whether the defendant corporation was liable to pay the plaintiff corporation the sum ,of £792 11s 7d, this sum representing 15 per cent, or 3-2Cths of a sum of £5283 17s 3d. This latter amount was the sum which tho plaintiff corporation calculated was the cost of maintaining the road. For a. number of years since 1911 the Weber, Akilio and Pautngata Counties were under a written agreement, contributing mi annual sum of £l5O towards the expenses incurred in maintaining the road. There had been no evidence to show that the expenditure on the road had been excessive. This concluded the case for the plaintiff council. NON-SUIT MOVED FOR.

Air Wilford formally moved for a nonsuit, on tin) grounds that the ease bad not been proved in the true sense of the word. Thu defence was one which applied not only to iho Weber County Council, but also to the two other contributing councils and they would bo hound by the Court h decision. He would submit six points for the Court’s consideration. (1) The legislation under which the action was brought was legislation which might allow out; local authority to ruin another. (2) It must and docs curtail the necessary expenditure on tho area controlled by it contributing authority. (5) The expenditure ot a contributing authority under the law is uncontrolled tint! unlimited principally because the contributing authorities might have neither the (into nor the money to supervise and check the expenditure at tho time. (4) The defendant- county is highly rated in. comparison with the controlling authority and will be required beyond the rate of contribution to find 20 per cent, of a very heavy expenditure to hr incurved in the construction of a new bridge. (5) All the necessary expenditure in the defendant county, a contributing authority, has to be curtailed lor this and every succeeding yeat\ (6) b ndor this law the controlling authority may bo guilty of reckless expenditure and even unwarranted expenditure, ami tho contributing authorities are powerless either through public protest or legal action to prevent such action.

Alexander Lewis Stewart, chairman of tho Weber Comity Council, deposed that he had resided in the comity for 35 years, and had been chairman for three years. He was a land valuer, and had a sound knowledge of ihe district. Tho rateable value of the county was £488,970 (unimproved value), the area 75.000 acres and the population 420. Loans totalled £25,000. Tho annual interest was £I2OO and the overdraft about £4OOO. The rate was in the £l on unimproved value. There were 75 miles of formed roads in tho county, about half of which were metalled. The payment of the amount claimed was a serious matter.

Cross-examined by Mr Lloyd: The rates annually totalled £7009. Witness thought the defendant council’s allotted share of maintenance was unduly large, and he would suggest that- the maintenance road work had been carried out without regard to the cost. Harold Thomas, chairman of the Akitio County Council, Charles A. Meats, clerk to the Dannevirlce Borough Council, and John T, M. Brewster, engineer to the Akitio County Council, were called by eottn. sel for the defence, and adduced evidence of a technical nature touching on practical road maintenance. (Proceeding.)